• Pachyderm Theology - Refuting Chris Lyon’s claims against ‘fatalism’, systematic theology, and predestination vs science, at Triablogue.
• White Elephant Theology - Steve Hays from Triablogue steps in to make further observations on the response from Chris Lyons’ crew.
• Half-baked Science Meets Half-Baked Relativism - Triablogue demonstrates how Chris Lyons’ rejection of Systematic Theology has left him with self-refuting relativism and appeals to science.
• Calvinist Anathema - Old Truth examines Chris Lyons’ claims of ‘another gospel’ for Calvinists, while he simultaneously calls for tolerance from others.
• Predestinarians Produce Bad Fruit? - Answering Chris Lyons’ claim that ardent belief in Election results in bad fruit / poor evangelism, on OldTruth.com
• Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failure: In Chris Lyons’ own words - why he thinks Systematic Theology is harmful to Christianity.

Jim, I thought the article was very good, and I don’t mind at all being associated with it

Chris L said: just to be clear - when Calvinism (or individual solas) are raised to the same level of truth as scripture - in word or practice - it has become “another gospel”…

Chris, I’d be interested to know if you believe elevating the Trinity up to the point of scriptural truth makes it ‘another gospel’. Do you hold the same standard with this particular doctrine that you do with the helpful definitions of scriptural truth that we use with the solas? What about the doctrine of God altogether? Have we incorrectly labeled Him as a male given this man-made label you speak of and a distinction that He is essentially not bound to? If He is not bound by time, as you argue, and it would be incorrect to try and build truth around those lines, then is He also outside the male/female realm to where we are incorrect in labeling Him as such? Please explain.

But to the extent that we are certain that the Trinity rightly captures biblical truth, for example, we (and much of church history) are also as certain about the scriptural truth captured in the solas. You may disagree with them, of course, but calling it another gospel because of the importance in which we give them is a little ridiculous.

Chris said to Jim: “It isn’t surprising that you’re behind this farce”

I, for one, thought Jim’s article was very charitable, given the strong disagreement. A quick look at your blog reveals a good bit of ridicule, mocking, and condescending rhetoric being hurled at me (for my worship post last week), so I believe that contrasting your place with this article speaks for itself. I’m certainly sensitive to having a charitable and loving conversation, even in disagreement, but I find nothing inappropriate here, by anyone’s standards. Let’s not get upset over a simple critique; people disagree with you, Chris, as you do with us. Let us be able to write about it and discuss it without taken such an offense.

Chris said: As such, when we use words like “predestined” and extrapolate this concept - as we understand it - we are placing God within the sphere of time…

Chris, do you recognize that the term ‘predestine’ is a scriptural term? You entire logic breaks down, IMO, when we consider that the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit sought to emphasize predestination and election repeatedly to the church. He repeatedly mentioned it and taught it. So I would argue that we are not placing God within the sphere of time, but that the Apostle by the Holy Spirit is instead the one who is seeking to ‘box in’ this issue, complete with an abuse of ‘time’ according to your logic.

Chris said: How can I have certainty that none of the systematized views of God in relation to time is true to the exclusion of others?…if you accept that each view contains a part of the truth because of the nature (or super-nature, to be accurate) of God, then you are not stuck trying to make less-than-convincing eisegeses of scripture…When you suggest that they are the ONLY way of examining time in relation to God, you have just built an extrabiblical “system”, which might be helpful in explanation, but which also will have its limitations (like Newtonian Physics has its limitations when you get to micro- and macro-scale).

So the scripture that speak of God the Father as having an arm, or eyes, for example, should be taken as parallel truths to the scriptures that speak of Him being a Spirit without a body? Is it extra-biblical to refer to God as three in one? Do Newtonian Physics help our understanding of the Trinity?

And one last thing. This: “So nice to see that you’ve slithered out from underneath your rock, Ken.” is such a good example of what Christian dialog (the lack of it being lamented so much) should be. Good work.

May God speak to you, and terrify you, and call to you, and love you Chris
Sam

I would be careful about citing too much Scripture to bolster your arguments. You argue that some texts referring to predestination are more derived from Greek fatalism (indicating the tampering of Holy writ to some popular world-views) and that simply because of God’s infinity, and the truth that He is “outside” of time, negate any mention of order of events–never mind the numerous texts that use verbiage like “before the foundations of the world” and others.

Leave time out of it if you wish, you are partially correct in that assertion. But that really doesn’t change anything. God created time as He did everything else–under His control, and I think He meant what he said every time He made mention of it and how it relates to man throughout both Testaments. Unless those confounded Greeks got a hold on the prophets too.

The “it isn’t surprising” comment was directed to your reputation as defense of Calvinism as if it were contending for the faith.

First off, I would note that I said that the bases for these different views (particularly free will vs. predestination - which, no matter how you slice it was developed from Greek fatalism - and the logical inconsistencies around prayer and God changing His mind) do not have to be contradictory if you remove 1-dimensional, unidirectional time from the equation.

I’m not sure why this is “postmodern”, since it predates the rise of PM thought by more than a century, and I can’t claim it as my original work.

Just to delve briefly into the nature of time and string theory - If God exists beyond time and space - i.e. apart from His creation (and I believe that he does, and that there is scriptural evidence of such) - then time does not work the same for Him (as implied in His very name). As such, when we use words like “predestined” and extrapolate this concept - as we understand it - we are placing God within the sphere of time.

However, if you can grasp the concept of 3-dimensional time (and not many folks can - it escapes my understanding very quickly, though I know physicists who can grasp the concept better than I can), “predestination” no longer holds the same meaning. If God can move forward and backward at will, along with moving from side to side in time, then there are a myriad of potential pasts and futures. However, we know from scripture that there are certain things (X) that God predestines (like giving Hezekiah 15 more years of life). When He does this in 3D-time-space, it is basically like He is closing off all potential futures in which X doesn’t happen. However, this still leaves room for man’s free will (the limited futures within the bounds of God’s will).

But wait - does that mean that God does not know what man will do? Not in 3D-time-space, because He knows all of the futures, because He can see all of them. But what happens when the future becomes the past? If God sits beyond time and space, then even the past does not have to be static (to Him), even if we perceive it to be so.

If you have a basic grasp of quantum physics, then it should be obvious that using words like “predestination” in relation to God and then trying to apply our limited working knowledge of time (one-dimensional, one-way) to that same definition is like trying to explain how to stop a 3-dimensional soccer ball with the goalie bar in Pong.

Additionally, when you remove our limited box of “time” from God, the manifestation of Jesus - God in human form, limited in dimensions and time - and his relationship to God, including his praying in the garden for God to change His mind, begins to make sense, as well, without having to apply limited logic of free will or predestination to the equation.

In a nutshell - if you remove the one-dimensionality of time from the equation, then there is not a contradiction of free will and predestination, because they are literally two aspects of the same phenomena.

How can I have certainty that none of the systematized views of God in relation to time is true to the exclusion of others? There, I would go to the Bible. There are examples of places where God has predestined things (like with Hezekiah), and there are examples of places where God makes it apparent that people must make a free-will choice (like with Esther). There are also places where men choose to go against God’s will, but end up being forced in that direction anyway (like Jonah). When any of these views (all of which are man-made extrapolations as to the nature of God) are taken to the extreme, then they have to come up with contortionist reasoning to explain away contradictory passages in scripture. On the other hand, if you accept that each view contains a part of the truth because of the nature (or super-nature, to be accurate) of God, then you are not stuck trying to make less-than-convincing eisegeses of scripture.

In practice, though, one should live like you have free will to choose - how would you know the difference? One should act like God knows everything that you do and think - in view and in secret - because He does. One should pray like your petitions matter to God and that, like with Hezekiah and Moses, He might have mercy and change His mind - because we have these examples in the Bible. Trying to separate “true” Christians from “false” ones based on a dominant view of systematic theology is unscriptural and does not edify the body of Christ.

As to “another gospel”, I thought I specified that it was when - in word or practice - that a man-made system is held higher than scripture that it becomes “another gospel”. Mike Ratliff’s comment that “There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief” (the entire quote from his blog, BtW) would be an example of such elevation. Additionally, and I have only seen a broader contextual quote of Spurgeon’s comment that “Calvinism is the gospel” once - and multiple Calvinists who have quoted these words - and in both cases, the implication was that the Calvinist “system”, which ties multiple concepts together (some biblical, some extrapolational), was the only acceptable gospel. When this is the case, then it is, indeed, “another gospel”.

As for the passages you cite, some of them (though not John 6) indicate some level of predestination. When you suggest that they are the ONLY way of examining time in relation to God, you have just built an extrabiblical “system”, which might be helpful in explanation, but which also will have its limitations (like Newtonian Physics has its limitations when you get to micro- and macro-scale).

What’s a “farce” about our discussing your view (which is common with postmodernists) that Arminianism, Calvinism, and Open Theism are somehow not contradictory? That’s really the point we are after here. If you comment here again, please address that point, and also let us know how you can be so certain that one of those three views isn’t the truth while the other two are false. Why should we take your word for it that none of those can be true while the others are false?

A lot of time is spent on your blogs speaking out against those who say that various other Christians are not true believers. But isn’t that the implication that you are making by bringing up “another gospel“. According to Galatians, that means such a person is eternally cursed. I hope you don’t think that applies to us if we believe John 6:37-65, Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1, and many other passages that support what is today nicknamed “Calvinism”. We’ve elevated passages like those to the level of scripture, because THEY ARE scripture. And they do teach us that God elects and predestines.

When anything is raised to the same level of Scripture - in word or practice - it becomes “another gospel.” Who’s arguing this?

It isn’t surprising that you’re behind this farce, then…